Two Treatment Approaches for Human Regular U-500 Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes not Achieving Adequate Glycemic Control on High-Dose U-100 Insulin Therapy With or Without Oral Agents: A Randomized,Titration-To-Target Clinical Trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens for human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R, 500 units/mL) replacing high-dose U-100 insulins with or without oral antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: We conducted a 24-week, open-label, parallel trial in 325 patients (demographics [means]: age, 55.4 years; diabetes duration, 15.2 years; body mass index, 41.9 kg/m²; glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c], 8.7%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.5 units administered in 5 injections/day [median; range, 2 to 10]). Patients were randomized to thrice-daily (TID, n = 162) or twice-daily (BID, n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period. The primary outcome was HbA_1c change from baseline.Results: After 24 weeks, both treatments demonstrated significant HbA_1c reductions (TID, -1.12%; BID, -1.22%; both, P<.001) and clinical equivalence (difference, -0.10%; 95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 0.12%; noninferiority margin, 0.4%). Comparable increases in total daily U-500R dose (TID, 242.7 to 343.1 units; BID, 249.0 to 335.0 units) were observed. Incidence and rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) were lower for TID versus BID (P = .003 and P = .02, respectively); severe hypoglycemia was similar between treatments. Weight gain was similar in both groups (TID, 5.4 kg; BID, 4.9 kg).Conclusion: Initiation and titration of U-500R using either algorithm (TID or BID) improves glycemic control effectively and safely with fewer injections in patients with T2D treated with high-dose/high-volume U-100 insulin. These results provide clinicians with a practical framework for using U-500R in severely insulin-resistant patients with suboptimally controlled T2D.Abbreviations: BID = twice daily FAS = full analysis set HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin PG = plasma glucose SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose T2D = type 2 diabetes TDD = total daily dose TID = thrice daily U-500R = human regular U-500 insulin     

Evaluation of Total Daily Dose and Glycemic Control for Patients Taking U-500 Regular Insulin Admitted to the Hospital

Objective: Patients using U-500 regular insulin are severely insulin resistant, requiring high doses of insulin. It has been observed that a patient's insulin requirements may dramatically decrease during hospitalization. This study sought to systematically investigate this phenomenon.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with U-500 insulin outpatient regimens who were admitted to the San Antonio Military Medical Center over a 5-year period. Each patient's outpatient total daily dose (TDD) of insulin was compared to the average inpatient TDD. The outpatient estimated average glucose (eAG) was calculated from the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and compared to the average inpatient glucose.Results: There were 27 patients with a total of 62 separate admissions. The average age was 64.4 years, with a mean body mass index of 38.9 kg/m² and eAG of 203 mg/dL (HbA1c, 8.7%, 71.6 mmol/mol). All patients were converted from U-500 to U-100 upon admission. The average inpatient TDD of insulin was 91 units, versus 337 units as outpatients (P<.001). Overall, 89% of patients received ≤50% of their outpatient TDD. The average inpatient glucose was slightly higher than the outpatient eAG, 234 mg/dL versus 203 mg/dL (P = .003).Conclusion: U-500 insulin is prone to errors in the hospital setting, so conversion to U-100 insulin is a preferred option. Despite a significant reduction in insulin TDD, these patients had clinically similar glucose levels. Therefore, patients taking U-500 insulin as an outpatient can be converted to a U-100 basal-bolus regimen with at least a 50% reduction of their outpatient TDD.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseeAG = estimated average glucoseHbA1c = glycated hemoglobinNPO = nil per osSPSS = Statistical Package for the Social SciencesTDD = total daily dose     

Glycemic Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients on Ambulatory Humulin-R U-500 Insulin

ObjectiveManaging hospitalized patients on ambulatory U-500 insulin is challenging because of limited guidance on how to safely adjust insulin doses during admission. We sought to evaluate glycemic outcomes in relation to inpatient insulin doses in patients receiving U-500 prior to hospitalization.MethodsRetrospective study of hospitalized patients on ambulatory U-500 seen consecutively from January 2015 to December 2019. Primary outcomes were inpatient hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and normoglycemia at different insulin dosages expressed as weight-based (unit/kg/d) inpatient total daily dose (TDD) and ratio of inpatient to outpatient TDD.ResultsWe identified 66 admissions of 46 unique patients. The median (interquartile range) body mass index was 41.0 kg/m² (35.1, 46.8), home TDD 212 units (120, 300), and home insulin dose 1.6 units/kg/d (1.1, 2.2). The median (interquartile range) inpatient insulin dose was 0.7 unit/kg/d (0.3, 1.0) and the ratio of inpatient to outpatient TDD was 0.4 (0.2, 0.8). Hyperglycemia persisted throughout the hospitalization. For the outcomes of hyperglycemia and normoglycemia, we found no association between increased levels of insulin dosages. For the outcome of hypoglycemia, significantly higher odds were observed when non-fasting patients received an inpatient TDD that was either > 40% of their home TDD or > 0.6 unit/kg/d of insulin.ConclusionPatients on ambulatory U-500 have significant hyperglycemia during admission. Inpatient insulin doses of 40% of home TDD or ≤ 0.6 unit/kg were not associated with increased hypoglycemia risk. Further prospective studies are needed to determine effective doses in these high-risk patients.     

The Effect of Prestudy Insulin Therapy on Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin by Pump or Injection: A Posthoc Analysis

ObjectiveWe conducted a posthoc analysis of the VIVID study (Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin Administered by Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Clinical Trial), comparing 2 delivery methods of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injection (MDI), in type 2 diabetes requiring high insulin, to determine influence of prestudy insulin on glycemic outcomes.MethodsWe compared A1C, total daily insulin dose (TDD), weight, and hypoglycemia by subgroups of prestudy insulin (prestudy U-500R vs non-U-500R) and treatment (CSII vs MDI).ResultsAt baseline, prestudy U-500R had higher TDD, higher body mass index, lower A1C and fasting plasma glucose, and higher rate of hypoglycemia compared to non-U-500R. Active titration of U-500R reduced A1C in both subgroups, with maximum benefit at 8 weeks. At 26 weeks, CSII provided the greatest reduction in A1C in both subgroups, with a greater reduction in non-U-500R. MDI provided an A1C reduction in both subgroups, with the greater reduction in non-U-500R. At 8 weeks, prestudy U-500R reached its lowest A1C; thereafter, A1C rebounded with MDI and remained stable with CSII. In non-U-500R, A1C continued to decrease to study end. In non-U-500R, hypoglycemia increased during active titration, but then decreased in the posttitration maintenance period. In both subgroups, TDD increased from baseline with MDI but not with CSII. Body weight increased in both subgroups but was greater in prestudy U-500R with CSII compared to MDI.ConclusionRegardless of previous insulin, people on high-dose insulin could lower A1C with U-500R, with additional benefit from CSII. These results may provide guidance for use of U-500R in clinical practice.     

Clinical Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction with U-500 Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of U-500 regular insulin in pump therapy and to assess satisfaction with U-500 insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe insulin resistance.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of medical records of 6 patients with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance who had been using U-500 insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months. In addition, we conducted a telephone follow-up patient satisfaction survey.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 57 ± 6 years. Of the 6 patients (3 men and 3 women), 4 were white, 1 was black, and 1 was Asian. The mean hemoglobin A1c value before continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy with U-500 regular insulin was 9.1% ± 1.8%, and the mean U-100 insulin dose required was 391 ± 91 U/day. In comparison, the mean U-500 insulin dose required at 6 months was 59.2 ± 13.6 U/day, which is equivalent to 296 ± 68 U/day of U-100 insulin (P = 0.04), and the mean hemoglobin A1c value at 6 months after treatment with the insulin pump using U-500 regular insulin was 6.9% ± 0.9% (P = 0.03). In addition, our study patients lost a mean of 6.1 lb during the 6-month period, and no patient had clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia. The majority of the patients reported a higher satisfaction with the U-500 insulin pump therapy in comparison with conventional insulin treatment.ConclusionU-500 insulin pump therapy is a novel alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes and severe insulin resistance who have not met glycemic control goals with use of standard intensive insulin regimens. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:721-725)     

Use of U-500 insulin in the treatment of severe insulin resistance

Background: Glycemic control is essential in the management of diabetes. However, many patients with diabetes are not achieving therapeutic targets, partly because they are receiving insufficient doses of insulin. This is particularly problematic in patients with severe insulin resistance, defined as insulin requirement >200 units/kg per day (>3 units/kg per day for pediatric patients). It is difficult to use U-100 forms of insulin at doses >200 units/kg per day because of the volume of insulin being administered subcutaneously. U-500, a concentrated form of insulin, may be useful in the treatment of these patients.Objective: Current practice regarding the use of U-500 insulin has been published elsewhere. This article presents an updated algorithm for the administration and dosing of U-500 insulin, based on clinical experience with severe forms of insulin resistance. Guidelines are provided for dose escalation of U-500 insulin.Methods: We reviewed the results of treatment with U-500 insulin in patients with severe insulin resistance. We analyzed the results, updated a pre-existing algorithm, provided additional practical information on the administration and dosing of U-500 insulin, and compared the cost of U-500 with that of U-100 insulin.Results: To date, we have treated 56 patients (age range, 9–54 years) with severe insulin resistance using U-500 insulin. Doses ranged from 1.5 to 566 units/kg per day. Based on the pharmacodynamic properties of U-500 insulin, this concentrated form must be administered and dosed differently than regular U-100 insulin. U-500 insulin cost more than U-100 insulin on a per-milliliter basis, but cost less in the end because of the lower volumes of insulin required and fewer syringes and pump cartridges needed to administer U-500 insulin.Conclusions: In our experience, U-500 insulin is a useful tool in the management of patients with severe insulin resistance. U-500 insulin alleviates the volume-related problems associated with U-100 insulin, making treatment with higher doses of insulin (≥200 units per day) more effective with U-500 insulin than with U-100 insulin.     

Optimized Human Regular U-500 Insulin Treatment Improves β-Cell Function in Severely Insulin-Resistant Patients with Long-Standing Type 2 Diabetes and High Insulin Requirements

Objective: To assess β-cell function and insulin sensitivity following improvement in glycemic control in severely insulin-resistant patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: A subset of patients in a 24-week, open-label, randomized trial comparing thrice-daily (n = 14/162) versus twice-daily (n = 11/163) human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) underwent mixed meal tolerance testing at baseline and endpoint. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups (combined means: age, 54.0 years; diabetes duration, 13.6 years; body mass index, 38.8 kg/m²; glycated hemoglobin &lsqb;HbA_1c], 8.3%; U-100 insulin dose, 287.6 units/day, 2.6 units/kg/day). Primary outcome measure was ratio of area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide to glucose (AUC_C-peptide/AUC_glucose) at 24-week endpoint.Results: Change from baseline HbA_1c, daily U-500R dose, and weight were -1.17% (P = .0002), +80.8 units (P = .0003), and +5.9 kg (P = .33), respectively. β-Cell function significantly improved after 24 weeks of U-500R therapy in combined treatment groups. The AUC_C-peptide/AUC_glucose increased 34.0% (ratio of least-squares geometric mean, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.52; P = .0001). Integral of total insulin secretion rate increased from 27.0 to 33.7 nmol/m², and glucose sensitivity improved from 18.3 to 24.0 pmol/min/m²/mM (both, P = .02). Matsuda index improved from 0.8 to 1.3 (P = .008).Conclusion: Despite long-standing diabetes and poor glycemic control at baseline, functional recovery of β-cells was observed with improved glycemic control in these severely insulin-resistant patients with T2D, possibly due to alleviation of glucotoxicity.Abbreviations:AUC = area under the curveBID = twice dailyHbA_1c = glycated hemoglobinISR = insulin secretion rateLSM = least-squares meanMMTT = mixed meal tolerance testPG = plasma glucoseT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD = total daily doseTID = thrice dailyU-500R = human regular U-500 insulin     

The Effect of Long-Term Use of U-500 Insulin Via Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion on Durability of Glycemic Control and Weight in Obese,Insulin-Resistant Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of U-500 insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes and high insulin requirements.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the effects of U-500 insulin administered via CSII on durability of gly-cemic control (HbAlc), body weight, total daily insulin dose, and incidence of hypoglycemia in 59 patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes (duration of treatment 1 to 9.5 years; mean treatment duration 49 months). All variables were analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) from pre-U-500 baseline to time points from 3 to 114 months.ResultsAfter 3 months of U-500 insulin use, hemoglobin A1c dropped significantly from a mean baseline of 8.3% to a mean value of 7.3% (P = .003), and this improvement was sustained for over 66 months of use. There was no significant overall change in body weight or total daily insulin dose over time with the use of U-500 insulin. For those subjects who did gain weight, there was a parallel increase in insulin dose that correlated with weight gain.The overall incidence of severe hypoglycemia was low over the study period, with a mean occurrence of 0.1 episodes per patient per year.ConclusionsU-500 insulin is safe and effective for extended use (up to 9.5 years) in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes who require high insulin doses, and provides sustained glycemic control without causing excessive weight gain. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:196-201)     

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists on Patients with Diabetes on Insulin Therapy

Objective: The clinical benefit of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to basal-bolus or very high dose insulin regimens is unclear. This study investigated the impact of adding a GLP-1RA to a spectrum of insulin regimens (basal, basal-bolus, and U-500) to determine the impact on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight loss, and total daily insulin dose (TDD) over the course of 12 months.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 113 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus using insulin therapy. Each participant's HbA1c, body weight, and TDD were recorded prior to initiation of GLP-1RA therapy and at the 3, 6, and 12-month time points while on combination therapy.Results: Across all participants, the HbA1c values decreased significantly from a baseline of 8.9 (74 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% to 8.2 (66 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% (P<.01) in the first 3 months, 8.0 (64 mmol/mol) ± 0.12% (P<.01) at 6 months, to 8.3 (67 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% (P<.01) at 12 months. There was no significant decrease in weight or TDD with the addition of a GLP-1RA overall or in different insulin groups. However, there was a clinically significant decrease in weight over the study duration.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that adding a GLP-1RA to various insulin regimens may help to achieve glycemic goals while avoiding the less desirable side effects of weight gain and increasing insulin regimens. However, the expected weight loss and decrease in TDD may not be as sizable in the clinical setting.Abbreviations: DCOE = Diabetes Center of Excellence; DM = diabetes mellitus; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; RCT = randomized controlled trial; TDD = total daily dose     

U500 Regular Insulin use in Insulin-Resistant type 2 Diabetic Veteran Patients

ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of U500 regular insulin therapy in insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were previously treated with high-dosage U100 insulin regimens.Methods:At a large Veterans Affairs medical center, a retrospective chart review was performed of all patients whose U100 insulin regimens were converted to U500 regular insulin regimens using a protocol to ensure patient safety. Patients were followed up for longer than 6 months. Data reviewed included total daily dosage of insulin before and after regimen conversion and changes in hemoglobin A1c, body weight, lipids, and episodes of severe hypoglycemia.ResultsFifty-three patients met inclusion criteria. Average hemoglobin A1c level on U100 insulin regimens was 9.1 ± 1.7%, which decreased to 8.1 ± 1.3% (P < .001) after an average of 20 months (range, 6-52 months) on U500 insulin. The total daily insulin dosage at study end was not significantly greater on U500 (415 ± 166 units/day) than on U100 insulin (391 ± 120 units/day) (P = .34). Body weight did not change significantly (134 ± 29 kg vs 136 ± 30 kg, P = .18). There was a 20-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol (P = .014). Triglyceride values decreased by 97 mg/dL (P = .005). Eight episodes of severe hypoglycemia were documented in patients treated with U500 insulin, but this was similar to the incidence in these same patients while treated with U100 insulin.ConclusionWe conclude that U500 insulin can be safely and effectively used in insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes followed up at a large Veterans Affairs medical center using a protocol that ensures patients are thoroughly educated and carefully monitored. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:34-38)     

Comparison of Basal Insulin Regimens on Glycemic Variability in Noncritically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different subcutaneous basal insulin regimens on glycemic variability (GV) and hospital complications in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: This study is a post hoc analysis of 279 general medicine and surgery patients treated with either a “Basal Bolus” insulin regimen using glargine once daily and glulisine before meals or a “Basal Plus” regimen using glargine once daily plus correction doses of glulisine before meals for glucose >140 mg/dL. GV was calculated as mean delta (Δ) daily glucose, mean SD, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).Results: Treatment with Basal Bolus and Basal Plus regimens resulted in similar mean daily glucose, hypoglycemia, length of stay (LOS), and hospital complications (all P>.05). There were no differences in GV between treatment groups by Δ change (72.5 ± 36 vs. 69.3 ± 34 mg/dL), SD (38.5 ± 18 vs. 37.1 ± 16 mg/dL) and MAGE (67.5 ± 34 vs. 66.1 ± 39 mg/dL) (all P>.05). Surgery patients treated with Basal Bolus had higher GV compared to those treated with Basal Plus (Δ daily glucose and SD: P = .02, MAGE: P = .009), but no difference in GV was found between treatment groups for the general medicine patients (P>.05). Patients with hypoglycemia events had higher GV compared to subjects without hypoglycemia (P<.05), but no association was found between GV and hospital complications (P>.05).Conclusion: Treating hospitalized, non-ICU, diabetic patients with Basal Plus insulin regimen resulted in similar glucose control and GV compared to the standard Basal Bolus insulin regimen. Higher GV was not associated with hospital complications.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseCV= coefficient of variationGV= glycemic variabilityICU = intensive care unitLOS = length of stayMAGE = mean amplitude of glycemic excursionsSSI = sliding scale insulinT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD =total daily dose     

A 24-Week,Prospective, Randomized,Open-Label,Treat-To-Target Pilot Study of Obese Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance to Assess the Addition of Exenatide on the Efficacy of U-500 Regular Insulin Plus Metformin

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of 500 U/mL (U-500) regular insulin + metformin with U-500 regular insulin + metformin + exenatide in improving glycemic control in patients with severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThirty patients with T2DM and severe insulin resistance were screened, and 28 were randomized to regular insulin U-500 + metformin or the GLP-1 analog exenatide, U-500, and metformin. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, body weight, and insulin doses were documented at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. The number and severity hypoglycemic episodes were noted.ResultsThere were 7 males and 7 females in each group (U-500 + metformin and U-500 + metformin + exenatide). Overall, U-500 insulin + metformin, either alone or with the addition of exenatide, resulted in a significant improvement in HbA_1c in both groups, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. There was no meaningful weight change in those utilizing exenatide. Those on U-500 insulin and metformin alone had a tendency toward some weight gain. No severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study period. Symptomatic hypoglycemia was more common in the group on exenatide, but this occurred in only 5 patients, and the clinical significance of this is uncertain. Insulin dosage changes on U-500 regular insulin were variable but tended to be lower in those subjects on exenatide.ConclusionsU-500 regular insulin + metformin is effective for the treatment of T2DM patients with severe insulin resistance. The addition of exenatide may ameliorate potential weight gain but provides no additional improvement in glycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1143-1150)     

Intermittent Intensive Insulin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Effects on Hypoglycemia,Weight Gain,and Quality of Life Over 2 Years

Objective: In early type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the administration of short-term intensive insulin therapy (IIT) can induce glycemic remission for a year thereafter, but this effect ultimately wanes. In this context, intermittently repeating short-term IIT could provide a strategy for maintaining the otherwise transient benefits of this intervention. However, the viability of this strategy would be contingent upon not inducing undesirable effects of insulin therapy such as excessive hypoglycemia and fat deposition. We thus sought to evaluate the effect of administering short-term IIT every 3 months on hypoglycemia, weight gain, and quality of life in early T2DM.Methods: In this 2-year pilot trial, 24 adults with T2DM of 2.0 ± 1.7 years duration and hemoglobin A1c of 6.4 (46 mmol/mol) ± 0.1% were randomized to 3 weeks of IIT (glargine, lispro) followed by either (1), repeat IIT for up to 2 weeks every 3 months or (2), daily metformin. IIT was titrated to target near-normoglycemia (premeal glucose 4 to 6 mmol/L; 2-hour postmeal <8 mmol/L). Participants were assessed every 3 months, with quality of life (QOL) evaluated annually.Results: The rate of hypoglycemia (<3.5 mmol/L) was low in the metformin and intermittent IIT arms (0.37 versus 0.95 events per patient-year; P = .28). There were no differences between the groups in changes over time in overall, central, or hepatic fat deposition (as reflected by weight &lsqb;P = .10], waist-to-hip ratio &lsqb;P = .58], and alanine aminotransferase &lsqb;P = .64], respectively). Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in QOL at 1- and 2-years.Conclusion: Intermittent short-term IIT may be safely administered in early T2DM without excessive adverse impact on hypoglycemic risk, anthropometry, or QOL.Abbreviations: ALT = alanine aminotransferase; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; IIT = intensive insulin therapy; ISSI-2 = insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; QOL = quality of life; SF-36 = medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey; T2DM = type 2 diabetes     

Reduced Hypoglycemia and Comparable Efficacy with Insulin Glargine 300 U/ML Versus Insulin Glargine 100 U/ML in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Achieving Different Levels of Prebreakfast Self-Monitored Plasma Glucose

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reached prebreakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) levels <100 and <130 mg/dL.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of insulin-naïve (EDITION 3, NCT01676220) and experienced (EDITION 2, NCT01499095) patients with uncontrolled T2D, randomized to 6 months of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 treatment. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin A1c change, hypoglycemia incidence, and event rates. Separate comparisons were done for patients achieving prebreak-fast fasting glucose of <100 versus ≥100 mg/dL and <130 versus ≥130 mg/dL.Results: Efficacy did not differ significantly between treatments in either study. Overall, basal insulin doses were ~10% higher with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. EDITION 2: overall and documented (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in all SMPG groups except <100 mg/dL; nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in all SMPG groups. EDITION 3: overall hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in patients with SMPG ≥100 mg/dL and those with SMPG <130 mg/dL; documented hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower in all SMPG groups except ≥130 mg/dL. Nocturnal and nocturnal documented hypoglycemia rates did not differ by treatment group. Hypoglycemia incidence did not differ by treatment in any SMPG group.Conclusion: In patients with T2D initiating basal insulin or previously treated for ≥6 months with basal insulin, Gla-300 provides similar efficacy to Gla-100 and reduces risk of hypoglycemia for many patients, despite a ~10% higher insulin dose.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1c; ADA = American Diabetes Association; Gla-100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; Gla-300 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

IMPROVED HBA1C,TOTAL DAILY INSULIN DOSE,AND TREATMENT SATISFACTION WITH INSULIN PUMP THERAPY COMPARED TO MULTIPLE DAILY INSULIN INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES IRRESPECTIVE OF BASELINE C-PEPTIDE LEVELS

Objective: Fasting C-peptide levels are used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes (T2D), thereby determining eligibility for coverage of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for patients with T2D.Methods: A total of 168 patients (74 female/94 male, aged 55.5 ± 9.7 years) were randomized to CSII, and 163 patients (77 female/86 male, aged 56.4 ± 9.5 years) were randomized to multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin and grouped by baseline C-peptide level: group A (≤183 pmol/L [≤0.55 ng/mL]); group B (>183 pmol/L [>0.55 ng/mL]). At 6 months, the MDI group crossed over to CSII. Within- and between-group comparisons were recorded at 6 and 12 months in the entire group and separately for those patients aged ≥65 years.Results: CSII reduced hemoglobin A1c (A1c) equally in groups A (P = .0006, P = .0022) and B (P<.0001, P<.0001) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was an increase in weight in group A versus group B at 6 months but not 12 months (P<.03). CSII therapy reduced total daily dose (TDD) of insulin and improved treatment satisfaction similarly in groups A and B. The results for patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend as the entire group.Conclusion: A1c, TDD of insulin, and treatment satisfaction improved for T2D patients using CSII versus MDI therapy, irrespective of baseline C-peptide level. A subgroup of patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend. These results support abandoning C-peptide as a criterion for reimbursing CSII therapy in patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: A1c = hemoglobin A1c; CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DTSQ = Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; MDI = multiple daily injections; RCT = randomized controlled trials; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TDD = total daily dose     

Basal-Bolus Regimen With Insulin Analogues Versus Human Insulin in Medical Patients with type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Latin America

Objective: Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non–intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay.Methods: In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups.Results: There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target <140 mg/dL before meals (76% versus 74%) between the glargine/glulisine and NPH/regular regimens. The mean insulin dose in the glargine/glulisine group was 0.76 ± 0.3 units/kg/day (glargine, 22 ± 9 units/day; glulisine, 31 ± 12 units/day) and was not different compared with NPH/regular group (0.75 ± 0.3 units/kg/day [NPH, 28 ± 12 units/day; regular, 23 ± 9 units/day]). The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was similar between patients treated with NPH/regular and glargine/glulisine (38% versus 35%; P = .68), but more patients treated with human insulin had severe (<40 mg/dL) hypoglycemia (7.6% versus 25%; P = .08). There were no differences in length of hospital stay or mortality between groups.Conclusion: The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn T2D = type 2 diabetes     

Safety and Efficacy of Glucostabilizer in the Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of GlucoStabilizer software intravenous insulin (IV) dosing in comparison to American Diabetes Association protocol-directed provider-guided insulin dose adjustment (PGIA).Methods: GlucoStabilizer calculates the dose of IV insulin required to reach a prescribed target glucose range. GlucoStabilizer has not been fully studied in DKA. This retrospective study compared outcomes in patients with DKA before and after the implementation of GlucoStabilizer. Insulin doses were administered based on GlucoStabilizer calculations or PGIA. The analysis evaluated before-after changes in the amount of insulin used, time to target, hypoglycemia or hypokalemia events, and the time to DKA resolution.Results: We studied 77 patients with insulin doses calculated by GlucoStabilizer and 69 patients with PGIA dosing. GlucoStabilizer was superior to PGIA. Patients treated with GlucoStabilizer-calculated doses did not experience hypoglycemia (N = 0 versus N = 10; P<.001). The 10 unique PGIA patients had a total of 18 episodes with 17 between 55 to 69 mg/dL; 1 <54 mg/dL, and no episodes <40 mg/dL. The GlucoStabilizer group required less insulin to reach DKA resolution (59.2 versus 101.2 units; P<.001). Time to glycemic target and DKA resolution were similar (6.7 versus 4.6 hours; P = .132) and (9.8 versus 9.9 hours; P = .803), respectively. No difference in the incidence of hypokalemia was seen (N = 9 versus N = 11; P = .48).Conclusion: This study demonstrates the Gluco Stabilizer settings that can be successfully used in the management of DKA with the avoidance of hypoglycemia. Patients treated with GlucoStabilizer-calculated doses experienced no hypoglycemia and required less insulin as compared to those managed with PGIA.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; ED = emergency department; eGMS = electronic glycemic management systems; ICU = intensive care unit; IV = intravenous; PGIA = protocol-directed provider-guided insulin dose adjustment